Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off the government can't force people to buy something under the threat of fining them...that happens only in a police state. A tax or fine can only be levied on something electively done by an individual not for doing nothing.
Secondly, if the government wants to offer a subsidized public option for those that cannot afford insurance then that is fine but interfering with private companies and telling them they should accept people with pre-existing conditions is nothing short of asinine. Companies price their premiums based on their own strategies and risk models... if you don't like their premiums then don't buy their policies simple as that!
This mandate is similar to asking auto insurance companies that they need to accept clients who have totalled their cars!
BTW - I am self employed, uninsured, uninsurable. Under Obama's plan, in 4 years, I'll be eligible to buy health care while I pay fines for the next four years if I don't (pre existing conditions won't be covered until 2014 under Obamacare).?
You won't be paying fines for the next 4 years, the fines start the same time that the insurance exchanges are set-up.
Why should I pay several hundred dollars per month for healthcare I won't use?
Tell me how do you know that you don't have pancreatic cancer right now? Now since you are not wealthy, how do you plan on paying for your health care if you one day you get such a disease?
People's comments on this matter are just silly. The people that are currently healthy see no problems, apparently too myopic to understand that their luck can end on any given day.
1.) We allow people to die at the steps of hospitals because they lack insurance or the money for care
or
2.) The costs are aggregated on society as a whole.
#2 Can be done a number of the ways (e.g., socializing the system), the method used in the health care bill is the most "free market" style approach that will work.
In terms of the bill being unconstitutional? Get off the right-wing news. The bill actually does not mandate health insurance on a national basis. Rather it requires states to either 1.) Set up a health care system that meets a set of requirements or 2.) Follow use the system in the bill. Of course, the issue is that the only good way of dealing with the pre-existing condition issue within the current framework is to mandate insurance. But the option is there for a state to think of an alternative solution, I guess right-wing states can test out all those great health care ideas they have.
The new law will work and I would like to tell you why. I work as an ER ICU Nurse. I have worked in 24 states. Over 70% of the people we see in the ER and treat for a long time in the ICU have no insurance.
The new law will save billions. Here is why.
-70% of all people coming to the ER/ICU have no insurance and their care is the most costly. These people now will have a doctor who will treat them in the office and get their diseases under control. This will reduce their use of the ER as their primary care. They MUST do this. If they come to an ER without an MD they will be given one who will follow them.
-Nearly all of the long term ICU patients are those who have not taken care of themselves. Over time this law will improve the health of these people thereby avoiding the long >10 day stays in the ICU
-Children will have primary care pediatricians who will be able to treat kids with expensive illnesses in their office thereby reducing crisis visits to the ER.
-All people regardless of ability to pay will have a doctor. Nearly 80% of visits to ER's in major cities are people who don't have jobs. Again, using MD office will reduce the stay and prevent ER visits again saving huge $.
-The law over time will improve the health of the people of this country. We will be stronger, more healthy and perhaps even again believe in our country.
Socialism? A label used by people who don't understand the reality of the road. Yesterday I took care of 17 people 15 of which had no doctor. You don't think this law is progress?
Get with it, believe me I am on the front lines. You can sit in your comfy chair and say all you want and if you do and still criticize this I say to you..........
"You're obsolete my baby, my poor old fashioned baby I said Baby Baby Baby you're out of time".
The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it’s untrue. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was “more convenient” to go to the emergency room or they couldn’t “get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed.”
Another question to throw into the mix....If this is the "great" solution than why are the politicians EXEMPT from the bill? It is good enough for the citizens but not them?
Yeah right. So if you get a serious illness or are in a very damaging accident you are just going to suffer and die? How noble of you. Nope, you are going to get care, get the bill, not be able to pay it, file bankruptcy and the bill gets shifted to the rest of us. Thanks in advance.
I can't imagine how people are so shortsighted and naive to believe that a chronic disease or serious accident can't happen to them. Yeah, health insurance is a waste of money most of the time, until something really bad happens, then it is the best money you've ever spent. Exactly the same as home and car insurance.
1.) We allow people to die at the steps of hospitals because they lack insurance or the money for care
or
2.) The costs are aggregated on society as a whole.
#2 Can be done a number of the ways (e.g., socializing the system), the method used in the health care bill is the most "free market" style approach that will work.
But MOST important -- #3 -- (never, Never, NEVER) Lower the Costs.
Is this really so complex?
Quote:
In terms of the bill being unconstitutional? Get off the right-wing news. The bill actually does not mandate health insurance on a national basis. Rather it requires states to either 1.) Set up a health care system that meets a set of requirements or 2.) Follow use the system in the bill. Of course, the issue is that the only good way of dealing with the pre-existing condition issue within the current framework is to mandate insurance. But the option is there for a state to think of an alternative solution, I guess right-wing states can test out all those great health care ideas they have.
Like open the insurance market to local co-ops, open import of pharmco/meds from outside the US, and open low cost, open-enrollment medical schools/training?
Good gordy, we could have a medical system as good as Cuba. And THAT would be a major improvement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
